The Solution vs Hoax equation

[audiomaker]

No, it's not quite that simple. They aren't all "hoaxes by default".

<snip>

I had a feeling that would draw you out.

In a nutshell though, I get the sensation that this "cognitive heuristic" could be applied to the degree where it is self-beytraying.  I fully understand however, that one who possesses great intelligence must become both weary and wary after a number of disillusions presented by the ignorant and assaults by the less-than-righteous.

It is however the proverbial "needle in a haystack" that is in one form or another, what most of the members here seek.  I have the advantage of ignorance, having intentionally avoided this, and other outlets of its kind over the years.  From a position of ignorance, my observation is that ruling out devices constructed on "classes" of phenomena might be going a bit too far.

I feel that it is a dangerous assumption that an inventor...or a re-discoverer should have the burden of proof.  It seems no more likely to me that an intelligent researcher with the "answer" would have the correct processes to properly submit a real solution to the community (and the world), than it would for an intelligent hoaxer to have the logic that they will be discredited, or...incarcerated after submitting a fake.

It is because of this, that I suggest the burden of proof lays on the community, else we potentially betray what we seek.

Put another way... there is no prerequisite that a working device have video, not have external wires laying around it, or hooked to it, not have hidden areas or "mystery boxes", not be looking for investment capital, and not be based on a certain "class" of device.

I will submit to you that if I had a 100% working device... of any nature, that I could very quickly make it appear 100% fake.    I'd throw some wires on it leading to a connected motor that does nothing, I'd put a battery on the floor next to it with some jumper cables, I'll make strange edits to the video at key points, I'll have a webpage asking for investors, refuse to produce data or schematics, I'll sell holistic herbs next to it and I'll offer a free Ginsu knife set with every purchase.

Point?  I can almost promise that I could take a real working device if one existed and have it fail the "cognitive heuristic" process immediately. 

While that would be an intentional action, it would not dismiss the fact that the device actually worked.

If I did it unintentionally, the only real thing that could be proven was that I had absolutely no sense of what it would take to get recognition and validation of my device.  That lack of sense however does not preclude a working device and the community fails when it bases it's search pattern on that criteria.

It is...after all.. the underlying theme of this community to invent or uncover such a device even if the device is not one's own.  No?

Thoughts?

[evolvingape]

You make some excellent points there audiomaker, so my thoughts...

This site is called overunity.com and the very point of it is a search for a device that produces more energy than it consumes to operate, thus violating one or more laws of nature. This is not an easy thing to do, after all nobody has ever seen one. A device that performs at >100% efficiency is deemed to be impossible, a device that performs at >100% COP is perfectly possible and proven by harnessing the energy available from the environment and adding it to the output.

For me it is about more than that, creating new technologies, integrating and innovating on known proven technologies to create new useful outputs and processes. This community offers the opportunity for many skilled people to share knowledge and have input to improve aspects of the devices. This is why I chose this platform to release all my work, because I knew that there are many people with the skill sets and resources I don't possess that would develop and test my devices for the greater good, it is also my way of paying back all the people who have invested in me by making their knowledge available for me to build on.

I was unable to develop a prototype of my HELP generator due to the position in society I was in at the time, releasing that information fully and openly has ensured that the device is built and tested and the results will eventually become known. When you have invested a large amount of your life in a project and fully developed it theoretically to the point where all of the design problems and architecture are solved and it is ready to be built it becomes very hard to give it all away, however for me it wasn't, it was liberating. The reasons I did it in the first place, for other people, made the choice simple when it became apparent that otherwise I would fail within the timescales I had set.

I was then free to complete the parallel related technologies that would have been shelved had I chosen to be selfish and keep my invention to myself and struggle to build and test it myself. When you consider that the HELP was released more than 2 years ago, and it is reasonable to expect that within one year a prototype would have been completed by the people with the knowledge, skills and resources to do so, we can then extrapolate that for the last year or so the device has been undergoing heavy testing to see what it's potential is. The fact there is no news after all this time is a very encouraging sign, if it did not work as expected I am sure we would have heard about it by now, this forum is not exactly a place where people hold back negative results to avoid hurting your feelings. I am also sure that some people want me to fail.

I designed all my devices on known principles and technologies and focused on integration and innovation, which is why you won't see anyone telling me that it won't work, because if they did that they would be denying the reality of the working devices and principles we already have proven. There are no leaps of faith within my technologies, only the question of "how well" they work, not "if" they work.

I have not presented an actual working model to the community with associated claims about performance, I have given them the designs and my expectations and allowed them to build, test and refine and at some unspecified time in the future we will all find out together if it performs as expected. Something to look forward to next year I would think!

Tusk has just done the same thing in a previous post, offering his device up for independent testing and verification by the community, and I respect him for that. The attitude of the community is changing, it is no longer acceptable to show a working model and claim that is proof of your claims, instead an honest inventor who believes in his device has nothing to fear from full dissemination and independent verification by the community, except failure itself.

Rob 

[audiomaker]

@Rob

I think most people here are closer to agreeing on the definition of "Free Energy" than one gets the initial impression of.  I think "New technology" as you state is probably the closer definition, or perhaps "Practical New Technology".

The reason I say this is because of wind/solar/hydro...etc.

Certainly these technologies qualify and I can demonstrate this by the example that if someone on this board took "what looked" like a solar cell and buried it 10ft underground producing the same output the same sized solar cell would, then we'd have a winner.  However, it is somewhat the "new" untapped energy source we are looking for, and I think in a practical sense, one that could power our homes and cars with no input from the grid, and no additional cost beyond whatever device could produce this.  Again... solar already achieves this.  Inventing a "cell" that pulls energy from the aether would simply be another form of energy being harvested...yet, that is the goal.

...but back to the topic at hand...

Your "HELP" generator... I've never heard of it.  Perhaps with more time spent here, or "in the loop", I would have known.  Again I will submit my ignorance as an advantage both to me, but more importantly to the group because all of you can study the reaction of someone who is genuinely "out of the loop"....as nearly everyone on the planet is.  Perhaps I have a "Help" type generator myself (I don't), and it's almost complete. What do I do now?
You state that yours is 2 years in progress. 2 years?

What I've tried to do in this thread is approach it as if I had an "OU" device, or a "Practical New Energy Technology" and was at the point of desiring to have it validated, improved to the point of practicality,  and manufactured for world consumption.
What I am discovering is that the mechanism to do so is in disarray, and that there is not only a (very logical) bias against improperly construed submissions, a less-than-adequate discovery phase (which is why I have no idea what a "Help Generator" is), a burden a proof that might be beyond my expectations, a threat of suppression, but also no clear or reliable process to the destination.

Take this example of a hypothetical...
The 5 year old son of a truck driver places an electronic insect "zapper" on top of mom's electric range.  It melts, a few traces on the PCB short, and suddenly it lights up brightly and indeed even hovers over the coil of the electric range...producing more heat than the range itself.  Truck driver dad grabs a video on his cell phone...cereal boxes in the shot, and uploads it to YouTube.

This example is embarrassing to say the least (I'm sorry), yet even Dr. Tesla purportedly made discoveries by the observation of the side effects of his experiments (ie..by "accident").

Both the floating bug zapper and the HELP generator have something in common...  I am unware of them whether they work or not.  If either work, then that is a failure of the system, this board in particular, and the mechanisms (or lack of them) in place.  I, by my ignorance, am a perfect testifying witness because at this point I can represent the population as a whole in this equation.

This board acts somewhat as a committee of exceptional thinkers in chaos. 

(@ members and administrators):

I don't have a solution to this, but I'd like to seed a baseline idea...

While I find the concept of having a "prize" for a verifiable "OU" device admirable, I feel there must be a more pro-active approach.

If I were (standing in the "ignorant corner") going to pledge money, it would be towards a format such as this:

1.  A new forum is created for the submission of devices or even concepts.

2.  Each submission has it's own thread.

3. Each thread contains a "poll" where the board members can discuss and "vote" on the potential validity of the submission.

4. Threads with high poll ratings get researched.

5. "Research" involves contacting the "inventor" and establishing communications (the board submission might not be by the inventor as in YouTube examples).

6. Once communication is established, and if the inventor still holds to his/her claim and is willing to undergo scrutiny, then "contact" is made.

7. "Contact" consists of say...3... unrelated, yet recognized board members being flown to the location... test equipment in hand.

8.  Flights, hotels, car rental, and per diem (i.e...food money) are provided by a "fund" sponsored by the board members.  Investigation time is donated.

9. "Prize money" is not required as substantiation from the "verification team" of this board will allow the inventor to make millions simply writing a book about it...even if freely given.

10.  All accounts and findings are posted to the individual threads as they happen, and the current status is updated regularly until a success or fail verdict is achieved.

11. If a success verdict is achieved, further assistance is provided by the group as is protection of the inventor and the invention from suppression.

12.  All "verification investigations", their status, and their verdicts remain publicly posted as a resource to others.


Ok...well that's a pretty rough draft, but I think you get the idea.

I welcome your thoughts on this approach.

P.S.  I am officially claiming the acronym "P.E.T." (Practical Energy Technology) as my own.  What a short road to fame that was

[Tusk]

Well thought out audiomaker. You seem to have covered all but one important point, as far as I see it. When someone finds themselves confronted by the impossible - and this is  how things will appear, especially to a well educated investigator - the tendency is denial and disbelief. The observer goes into something akin to one of those digital glitch repeating loop things (is there a name for that? There should be) which potentially could go on ad infinitum.

So flying three well educated investigators halfway around the world just to have them return confused and unsure of what they witnessed might prove a little imprudent.

I put it to you that the lack of consensus on what constitutes a valid litmus test is the real issue here. It should be obvious by now that the 'real deal' will appear so ridiculously paradoxical and simplistic that nobody will give the thing a second look. Another 'tell' will be the demeanor of the inventor; rather than desperately defending their 'baby' you will probably find them quietly looking around at the ideas of others, adding a comment here and there, waiting patiently for the penny to drop.

The other thing you might notice, but this takes awhile - and it requires a serious first look without which the information doesn't get stored in the subconscious - is a nagging feeling that something is wrong with the universe... something you saw just didn't add up. If you can take a good long look at something and walk away with no nagging doubts, then you probably should do so.

[TinselKoala]

I had a feeling that would draw you out.

In a nutshell though, I get the sensation that this "cognitive heuristic" could be applied to the degree where it is self-beytraying.  I fully understand however, that one who possesses great intelligence must become both weary and wary after a number of disillusions presented by the ignorant and assaults by the less-than-righteous.

It is however the proverbial "needle in a haystack" that is in one form or another, what most of the members here seek.  I have the advantage of ignorance, having intentionally avoided this, and other outlets of its kind over the years.  From a position of ignorance, my observation is that ruling out devices constructed on "classes" of phenomena might be going a bit too far.

I feel that it is a dangerous assumption that an inventor...or a re-discoverer should have the burden of proof.  It seems no more likely to me that an intelligent researcher with the "answer" would have the correct processes to properly submit a real solution to the community (and the world), than it would for an intelligent hoaxer to have the logic that they will be discredited, or...incarcerated after submitting a fake.

It is because of this, that I suggest the burden of proof lays on the community, else we potentially betray what we seek.

Put another way... there is no prerequisite that a working device have video, not have external wires laying around it, or hooked to it, not have hidden areas or "mystery boxes", not be looking for investment capital, and not be based on a certain "class" of device.

I absolutely agree. There is only one "prerequisite" and that is that the data support the conclusions drawn from them, and that the claims made are supported by experimental results. The real data, I mean, not some cherry-picked values obtained by incorrect application of the wrong tools, as we see so many times in these matters.

I will submit to you that if I had a 100% working device... of any nature, that I could very quickly make it appear 100% fake.    I'd throw some wires on it leading to a connected motor that does nothing, I'd put a battery on the floor next to it with some jumper cables, I'll make strange edits to the video at key points, I'll have a webpage asking for investors, refuse to produce data or schematics, I'll sell holistic herbs next to it and I'll offer a free Ginsu knife set with every purchase.

Point?  I can almost promise that I could take a real working device if one existed and have it fail the "cognitive heuristic" process immediately. 

While that would be an intentional action, it would not dismiss the fact that the device actually worked.

Of course you could do that. What in the world would be the  point of that, though? (Although some have speculated that Andrea Rossi must be doing just that). Would it not be better by far to demonstrate unequivocally that your device _did_ work as claimed? It would be easier, too. The best way to keep other people from knowing that your device is real is simply to not tell anyone about it. And what would the point be of that, if you really did have, or thought you had, an overunity device?

If I did it unintentionally, the only real thing that could be proven was that I had absolutely no sense of what it would take to get recognition and validation of my device.  That lack of sense however does not preclude a working device and the community fails when it bases it's search pattern on that criteria.

It is...after all.. the underlying theme of this community to invent or uncover such a device even if the device is not one's own.  No?

Thoughts?

Yes, I suppose it is, and part of that process is to winnow out the chaff from the wheat. I cringe when I see creative and intelligent people travelling down a road that they have chosen only because they don't know how to calculate power properly, but believe they do, for example. If mistakes like that aren't run down and publicly corrected..... everybody in this community suffers therefrom. Newcomers think that the wrong way is OK, the creative and intelligent claimant wastes time and money, the villagers get tired of the boy crying "wolf" because he sees a squirrel through his cracked spectacles..... you get the idea, I hope.
But seriously..... what inventor of a real FE device is so inept that he won't claim it is, and pretends that it's not? (I actually know of at least one such case, though.... not that the inventor DID that, but that many people apparently believe that he did.)